Breakdown of A Coalition

The 20-year-old coalition that has fashioned and
supported the biggest federal aid program for
schoolchildren--one that dispenses more than $3-
billion a year for remedial instruction in reading
and mathematics--is coming apart at the seams, and at the
worst possible time.

Cooperation between public and church-related schools
was strained in local districts by the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision last year barring publicly paid remedial teachers
from religious-school classrooms. And the national political
consensus shared by those schools has broken down since the
Reagan Administration unveiled a proposal last November
to provide the aid in the form of vouchers.

The splintering comes as the Congress, mandated to cut
spending, must rewrite the remedial-aid law--Chapter 1 of
the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act--next
year. The voucher bill, which will probably be the Administration's
reauthorization proposal, is strongly opposed by the
National Education Association and other public-school lobbies,
but has been endorsed by the U.S. Catholic Conference.
It was the alliance between public-education forces and advocates
for private and religious schools that led to passage of
the first major federal education legislation, the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

But now the fighting between such powerful interest
groups is weakening the case for federal aid to education.
After all, if school groups cannot agree on the services they
need, why should the Congress support such controversial
programs? Supporters of the Pentagon and Social Security,
in contrast, present much more united fronts in fighting for
their programs.

Most significantly, cooperation between public and nonpublic
schools is collapsing in many local school districts,
where Chapter 1 pupils who attend parochial schools find
their guaranteed remedial services seriously threatened.
Last July, the Supreme Court, in Aguilar v. Felton, ruled
that Chapter 1 instructional services could not be provided
on the premises of parochial schools. The consequent withdrawal
of or disruption in Chapter 1 aid to almost 200,000
religious-school students has undermined the basis of trust
and cooperation between public-school districts, which provide
the services, and parochial schools (and their students),
which receive them.

Local school authorities find themselves in a real quandary.
On-site programs in religiously affiliated schools are now
illegal--though such arrangements were often the most convenient
and effective means of teaching remedial mathematics
and reading. But federal law still requires equitable services
for students in public and religious schools. So, districts
have tried to find "off-site" alternatives, such as busing parochial-
school students to nearby (or not so nearby) public
schools, or using "neutral sites" (such as storefronts), mobile
vans, interactive television, or semipermanent buildings off
the religious-school grounds. None of these options seems
ideal. They are often expensive, disruptive, and unacceptable
to parents of parochial-school students.

Predictably, since September, use of Chapter 1 services
has dropped by one-third to one-half for children attending
religious schools; and the problem is likely to get worse in the
next school year, when districts such as New York City and
Philadelphia--which were granted delays by the courts until
fall 1986--must find ways of meeting the needs of their large
parochial-school student groups. Religious-school parents
have a perfect right to demand equal treatment. They may
even take public-school authorities to court to get what they
deem to be a fair shake, further straining the partnership
and endangering the entire Chapter 1 enterprise.

On the national scene, U.S. Secretary of Education William
J. Bennett--with the support of the Catholic Conference
and other representatives of nonpublic-school groups--continues
to favor vouchers as a way to solve the dilemma
caused by the Felton decision. His proposal, called the equity
and choice act (TEACH), is stalled on Capitol Hill. But Mr.
Bennett's vocal advocacy, the bill's apparently straightforward
logic, and the coming reauthorization of Chapter 1
promise to keep the controversial legislation on the front
burner.

Under TEACH, Chapter 1 funds would go to poor families as
vouchers (estimated at about $650 each) that parents could
use to buy remedial services for their children at a school of
their choice. This plan has obvious attractions: It gives poor
families greater educational options, and it seems to overcome
the constitutional issues, since families--not schools--receive
the federal dollars. And importantly, the money goes
equally to qualified students whether they attend private or
public, sectarian or nonsectarian schools, thus overcoming
the guaranteed-equity problems of the off-premises options
now being used.

In Felton, Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell--the swing
vote in most cases involving the separation of church and
state--seemed to invite the Congress to try a Chapter 1
voucher plan. In his concurring opinion, he argued for assistance
programs whereby funds would be "available equally
to public and nonpublic schools without entanglement." He
seemed to suggest a voucher-like scheme when he noted that
perhaps the "Congress could fashion a program of evenhanded
financial assistance to both public and private
schools that could be administered without government supervision
in private schools, so as to prevent the diversion of
aid from secular purposes."

But even though vouchers are conceptually and constitutionally
attractive, they have become the Apple
of Discord, triggering powerful reactions by
public-school lobbyists who proclaim them to be
the death knell of public education. The reactions of the
teachers' unions have been predictably negative. Mary Hatwood
Futrell, president of the N.E.A., has called the TEACH bill
a "cruel hoax"--legislation that would "impoverish public schools," thus weakening ''the very institutions that have
most helped the most needy."

The policymakers' coming options, then, are painful ones.
If Chapter 1 continues as is, parochial-school students will be
treated inequitably by local districts and may sue for better
services under the E.C.I.A., thus disrupting the local consensus
on Chapter 1. Already, participation has fizzled significantly.
Next fall, when big-city schools must serve thousands
more parochial-school students in off-site arrangements that
are unacceptable to parochial-school leaders and parents,
Chapter 1 will come under shattering attack--at precisely
the time when the Congress will be in the final stages of
reauthorization. If, on the other hand, Mr. Bennett and others
press TEACH as a way out of the Chapter 1 dilemma, the
political furies will be unleashed. The battle between educational
groups will escalate.

Some may argue that federal aid to education is easily
dispensed with; that Washington should stay out of schools;
that local and state agencies should take up the slack. For
critics of federal aid, and for those seeking to save a few billion
federal dollars, the local and Congressional conflict over
Chapter 1 is a double blessing. But for those committed to
cooperation among local, state, and federal agencies and between
public and parochial schools to help deprived children,
the future of Chapter 1 is of great concern.

The miracle of 20 years of cooperation between public and
nonpublic education, between Washington and local districts,
is dying. The specter of local disintegration is already
with us. The first salvos in a divisive war in the Congress
have been fired. And while adults fight over vouchers and
fine points of law, poor children who desperately need remedial
help are seeing their teachers removed, resource rooms
closed, and opportunities lost.

There is no easy answer. Off-site programs for parochial
schools will not work in the long run. Vouchers, while attractive,
are politically explosive. In the grand effort to increase
military spending while maintaining current tax levels,
Chapter 1 will be an easy target. Parochial and public
schools, once allies in serving the poor, will have fewer resources
to upgrade the education of the nation's most deprived
and least prepared children--and no one will win.

Bruce S. Cooper and John Poster are associate professors in
the school of education at Fordham University. Mr. Cooper is
also a senior researcher with Organizational Analysis and
Practice in Ithaca, N. Y.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.